@Tolkem
I was trying to find a poll link that would give an exact number of those people, but the search results kept getting skewed. I even tried typing in "Linux" on Debate.org, and looking for anything regarding Linux on DebateIsland.com, but couldn't find anything. However, there still isn't anything wrong with a development team charging for support, funding, paying their staff, or other necessary reasons, as seen here:
https://analyticsindiamag.com/5-reasons-why-charging-money-for-linux-distributions-makes-sense/ Yes, I'm well aware of that distro developers make most of their money through donations, merchandise, and sometimes grants, but as I said, they can't always rely on them to keep the lights on. I'm not saying they have to charge the same amount that Microsoft does for new versions of Windows, if anything, they should charge less than them so consumers will find their distro more affordable.
The reason I keep talking about the market share is because 3rd party support is necessary to get Linux to run smoother (hence why I mentioned 3rd party software, gaming, and drivers), but developers don't care because of it's stake in the market share. Because Linux is so complex, its a challenge for them to create anything that can be ran in it coherently (again, snaps, flatpacks, and appimages are a step in the right direction, but they're still relatively new to developers). I imagine another reason why it gets shafted in this area is because companies like Adobe want full control over programs like Photoshop or After Effects (in both profits and development), and by allowing other people or companies to have access to the source code, they're afraid they'll lose profits and eventually go bankrupt. I understand that's a limited way of thinking (because someone with a programming background could make improvements on a program, which would help the company who originally made it), but they're looking at it from a business perspective, not an open-source software one.